Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matadors (band)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft). It looks like the main arguments are not meeting notability guidelines for bands (WP:BAND), but there's also a mention that it might meet the local clause of that same guideline; however, concerns are also raised about verifiability and reliability of those sources, so defaulting to soft-delete, under the assumption that one is free to re-create or request undeletion of the article, especially if it's to add additional, reliable sourcing. slakr^\ talk / 00:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Matadors (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm moderately neutral, since I'm the biggest fan of psychobilly I know after my buddy Nils. But this band appears not to be notable--no big record deal, no hits (of course--it's psychobilly, underground by definition), no significant coverage in the press. Note that the article is currently semi-protected due to persistent BLP violations, some internet chatter about playing in blackface that you can find in the history. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's assessment is spot on. The band isn't notable, but at least I learned about the psychobilly genre and that the nominator is a fan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator points out, by definition "psychobilly" is not a mainstream genre. It thus seems somewhat unfair to me to attempt to strictly apply aspects of our notability policies that would be so applied if this band performed in a mainstream genre. Just because something is a little obscure doesn't mean it should be penalized, subject to things like verifiability of course.

In my opinion, the band readily meets criteria seven in WP:Band, in that they are "the most prominent of the local scene of a city" in a "notable style", that being "psychobilly" in London Ontario Canada in this case. In fact, if someone were so inclined, I don't think it would be all that difficult to demonstrate this band's prominence in that particular genre in various communities right across the province of Ontario. I say let's give the article a chance to demonstrate that potential claim to "prominence" through the provision of concrete verifiable sources and not hold "non-mainstream" genre against them. 70.48.219.240 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reliable source that makes that unusual claim? After all, you left out what follows: "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I specifically mentioned our requirement for verifiability twice in my original comment. I'm not contending for anything "unusual" here, simply that recognition be given to the fact that articles pertaining to bands producing music in non mass marketed genres of music by definition, should not be unduly excluded on that basis. In terms of the potential "prominence" of the band itself within its genre on the local scene in London Ontario, based on criteria seven in WP:Band, I'd point out that they've won the locally significant Jack Richardson Music Award in their category three times in the last ten years, in 2005, 2007 and again in 2009. See [1],[2], [3]. 70.48.219.240 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Funny. I was just thinking about The Reverend Horton Heat. Exclaim! is a reliable source. The others look pretty weak, but if someone can provide more third party sources on that level, I might be convinced to vote to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.